Finally Italy sets an example!

If refugees need asylum, give it to them, but then simply make sure they pull their own weight by assigning all of them who are unable to find private-sector employment a sufficient schedule of compulsory state-organized labour to more than offset their living expenses. This not only makes it fair for taxpayers, but gives the refugees themselves respectability as contributing members of society (and hence worthy of citizenship eventually), and makes negativity towards them indefensible.

I had expected Italy to be the country to show the way to the rest of the EU for folkish treatment of refugees ever since seeing the positivity of Riace years ago, and now indeed we begin to see policy proposals on a national scale in the direction that we have been recommending ever since the refugee crisis began:

Italy is hosting around 175,000 migrants and refugees, who languish in reception centres for months or even years while their asylum requests are dealt with by an overwhelmed bureaucracy.

…

They often end up being exploited – in Sicily, young West African men are paid a pittance to pick fruit and vegetables, while young women are forced to prostitute themselves by the roadside to pay off debts incurred from their journeys through the Sahara and across the Mediterranean.

Marco Minniti, the interior minister, will present a plan in parliament on Wednesday by which migrants and refugees will be required to perform “socially useful” work while their claims are assessed, possibly as a condition to receive a weekly living allowance.

…

Some refugees already perform community service, such as sweeping the streets and maintaining parks and gardens, but until now the work has been on a purely volunteer basis.

“In our town they have been cleaning up the parks, helping to bring decorum to neglected areas,” said Luca Menesini, the mayor of Capannori, a town in Tuscany. “They’ve also made crafts, which were sold at the Christmas markets. It has allowed the foreigners to get to know us and for the locals to realise that not all migrants hang out at street corners, begging or talking on mobile phones.”

Matteo Biffoni, the mayor of Prato, also in Tuscany, said: “It would send a good message to Italians, who don’t appreciate seeing migrants doing nothing all day.”

The next obvious thing to do is for the Italian navy to start directly ferrying refugees across the Mediterranean so that they don’t incur debts to the shady human traffickers in the first place. Italy could charge a fee for this service to cover transport costs. As long as the fee is lower than what the traffickers charge, refugees would surely choose the state service (which would also be incomparably safer), Italy would be getting the refugees’ money (which they can later effectively give back to the refugees in exchange for their labour) instead of the traffickers (who probably change it to a whole other currency). It is all elementary economics. This too has been our repeated recommendation since the crisis began:

Further down the line, Italy (and all countries which have accepted refugees) should start putting as many refugees as possible into military service. This is a suitable timing for military consolidation by the EU (indeed I have said before that the EU needs an army of its own, or else it has no real power), because unless the EU has the courage to declare war on Hungary, I cannot see any other outcome than more and more other countries following the Hungarian approach. Why not, when they see that there is no practical penalty for doing so? Ethics? You cannot talk ethics to those who care nothing for ethics! All attempts to appeal to Hungary’s sense of basic decency have failed because Hungary has none – otherwise we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place! Civilized discussion can only occur between states which care about the general good, and merely disagree about how best to effect it. As soon as one state starts to think tribally, discussion with that state is over and war preparations must begin. When the EU demands Hungary: “Stop blocking the refugees’ paths!”, and Hungary’s reply is the bully’s typical challenge to his victim: “Or else what?”, then unless the EU’s retort is: “Or else Ahimsa.”, the bully wins. This is reality; anything else is wishful delusion. Imagine if, instead of talking to Israel for the last 70 years, we had promptly invaded it before it had time to acquire nukes. (At least Hungary doesn’t have nukes….. yet. Are we going to wait until it gets some too???)

9 Responses to Finally Italy sets an example!

There are 2 kinds of reactions to these policies (work/socially useful activities for immigrants):

-False left: “This is slavery! Exploitation! They shouldn’t be forced to work to get shelter!”
-Others: “There aren’t enough jobs even for current citizens, how will we be able to provide them jobs?” “We don’t have enough money/resources to do that, on the long run it’s not sustainable, this is only a temporary solution”
The Right also uses another argument “The treacherous government is giving jobs to immigrants while there are unemployed Italians that need them and would gladly accept them, but the government doesn’t give them the same opportunity”.

The first argument doesn’t need to be refuted. This kind of arguments is the reason why false leftists are increasingly considered idiotic and delusional outside of their circles (hence the victory of Trump and of future rightist parties, but lets not digress…) and You have been pointing this out for a while.

The other set of arguments, however, sounds reasonable, credible and down-to-earth. They are expressed even by non-rightists, who are sincerely concerned with the economy and sometimes even with the lot of the immigrants.

From the article:
“They often end up being exploited – in Sicily, young West African men are paid a pittance to pick fruit and vegetables, while young women are forced to prostitute themselves by the roadside to pay off debts incurred from their journeys through the Sahara and across the Mediterranean. “

“The proposal may meet resistance in a country where youth unemployment is around 40 per cent and economic growth is close to zero.“

How should we refute this argument? I know our position on the issue, which is basically this: “every person consumes and works, so if the economy is managed properly by the state there shouldn’t be unemployment”. This is basically advocating for Socialism against capitalism and lasseiz-faire free-market policies. But this is only theory, we need practical proposals. I guess I need to get familiar with “practical” economics and the state of the economy of my country (both of which I know nothing about), or find someone who does?
Also, in the Immigration article of the main website, there’s the… analogy of the immigrant coming to work on a farm. While the principle behind it is true, it also raises the question: how many people can that farm support?
When rightists say that a country cannot accomodate additional refugees, how do we respond? We need to have some way to determine the… carrying capacity of the country to answer. How do we do that?

Off Topic: The more time passes, the more I find it difficult to access this website while using TOR. Why?

““The treacherous government is giving jobs to immigrants while there are unemployed Italians that need them and would gladly accept them, but the government doesn’t give them the same opportunity”.
…
How should we refute this argument?”

The same policy should apply to unemployed Italians at the same time. The whole point is not to treat refugees as in any way “special”, but to treat them simply as additional unemployed Italians. In terms of allocation, only the suitability of the person to the needs of the task should be considered.

“Also, in the Immigration article of the main website, there’s the… analogy of the immigrant coming to work on a farm. While the principle behind it is true, it also raises the question: how many people can that farm support?
When rightists say that a country cannot accomodate additional refugees, how do we respond? We need to have some way to determine the… carrying capacity of the country to answer. How do we do that?”

This is also covered on the Immigration page:

any call for immigration reduction on one hand on the grounds that the country is “full up” accompanied on the other hand by a call for increase in local birth rate exposes itself as completely disingenuous. Every ecologically-based argument against immigration (some of which are indeed valid arguments) must, in order to be consistent, also oppose population increase via reproduction.

I have not done a quantitative calculation as to the carrying capacity of Italy (perhaps you can do that?), but considering all these empty villages/towns that we keep hearing about, I doubt this is an urgent issue. The fact that EVERY rightist who uses the carrying capacity argument also complains that the Italian birth rate is too low implies that the rightists themselves do not believe that Italy has reached its carrying capacity. (Remember: adding any number of immigrants to a country who can immediately start working is systematically less of a burden than adding the same number of newborns who must be invested into for many years before they can start working. So each time rightists say “Italy needs X births per year!”, they are admitting that Italy can take >X immigrants per year.)

We can also use the carrying capacities of the refugees’ origin countries (which have been drastically reduced by war) as an argument for why it would be disastrous to send them back to these countries as rightists want.

“The proposal may meet resistance in a country where youth unemployment is around 40 per cent and economic growth is close to zero.“

In my post I also emphasized the importance of including military service as part of the answer to unemployment. The problem you mention could be easily solved by recruiting unemployed youth into the military, and deploying them to conquer Hungary. This is not a new idea, by the way:

Hungary was of interest to be included because of its river harbours, tourism, large-scale production of agricultural machinery, electrical goods, pharmaceuticals, and timber.

“Only two further ways were left open in which work and bread could be secured for the increasing population. (3) It was possible to think of acquiring new territory on which a certain portion of’ the increasing population could be settled each year; or else (4) Our industry and commerce had to be organized in such a manner as to secure an increase in the exports and thus be able to support our people by the increased purchasing power accruing from the profits made on foreign markets. Therefore the problem was: A policy of territorial expansion or a colonial and commercial policy. Both policies were taken into consideration, examined, recommended and rejected, from various standpoints, with the result that the second alternative was finally adopted. The sounder alternative, however, was undoubtedly the first. … In considering this state of affairs to-day, one must not allow existing political frontiers to distract attention from what ought to exist on principles of strict justice. … When attempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way are rejected the clenched hand must take by force that which was refused to the open hand of friendship. … Such a decision naturally demanded that the nation’s undivided energies should be devoted to it. A policy of that kind which requires for its fulfilment every ounce of available energy on the part of everybody concerned, cannot be carried into effect by half-measures or in a hesitating manner. … Such a policy would have demanded a renunciation of the endeavour to conquer the world’s markets, also a renunciation of colonial intentions and naval power. All the means of power at the disposal of the State should have been concentrated in the military forces on land.” – Adolf Hitler

“Without respect for ‘tradition,’ and without any preconceived notions, the movement must find the courage to organize our national forces and set them on the path which will lead them away from that territorial restriction which is the bane of our national life to-day, and win new territory for them. … The aim which is to be pursued in our political conduct must be twofold: namely (1) the acquisition of territory as the objective of our foreign policy and (2) the establishment of a new and uniform foundation as the objective of our political activities at home, in accordance with our doctrine of nationhood. … Here I must protest as sharply as possible against those nationalist scribes who pretend that such territorial extension would be a “violation of the sacred rights of man” and accordingly pour out their literary effusions against it. … For no nation on earth possesses a square yard of ground and soil by decree of a higher Will and in virtue of a higher Right. The German frontiers are the outcome of chance, and are only temporary frontiers that have been established as the result of political struggles which took place at various times. The same is also true of the frontiers which demarcate the territories on which other nations live. And just as only an imbecile could look on the physical geography of the globe as fixed and unchangeable – for in reality it represents a definite stage in a given evolutionary epoch which is due to the formidable forces of Nature and may be altered to-morrow by more powerful forces of destruction and change - so, too, in the lives of the nations the confines which are necessary for their sustenance are subject to change. State frontiers are established by human beings and may be changed by human beings.” – Adolf Hitler

This is also covered on the main site:

it is entirely ethical – indeed it is a heroic duty – for a National Socialist state to capture the territory of tribalist states for incorporation within its own domain … It is only unethical for a National Socialist state to capture the territory of other non-tribalist states.

We don’t need to be too afraid of the wall: it takes much less work to demolish a wall than to build one, so we should simply encourage people to look forward to the day when the demolition of whatever wall Trump builds is broadcast live worldwide. (If PACPO works hard enough and efficiently enough, they could make it happen within as little as four years from now!)

The greater danger is from the measures aimed at reversing demographic gains already made, such as Trump making it possible for the Rehabs to deport basically whomever they want, and attacking sanctuary cities:

the executive order tells immigration agents to prioritize anyone they feel is a “risk to public safety or national security” even if they haven’t done any of those things — which is to say, anyone immigration agents want to deport… it signals that any immigrant caught up in the criminal justice system — whether or not they’re ultimately convicted of a crime — will be considered a “criminal” by this administration.

If the Rehabs start following Trump’s personal example of ethnic stereotyping, we know what will happen:

an official informed Mr. Langer he would not be able to vote. Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from. … it shows just how Trump’s mind works … In other words, Latino people are suspicious in the voting booth, while it’s outrageous that a white man like Langer couldn’t vote. (The fact that the white man in the story may not even legally be allowed to vote is the cherry on top here.)

Mexico also needs to understand this and refuse to take “back” anyone that Trump wants to deport, instead of focusing all its attention on the wall.

The only good news is that many mayors appear committed to standing their ground to keep their cities as sanctuary cities. So, as we keep saying, it has to be on this local level that Americans must rally to resist the Rehabs. And by resist, I do not just mean by citing local laws against federal interference, but also – if all else fails – by using firearms. Everyone who is serious about defending a sanctuary city must start by owning and being competent in operating firearms. Don’t come complaining to us when legislative countermeasures are not enough; we have already stated what needs to be done. Federal laws on their own do not magically deport people; all it takes is for people to choose to stay put. To drag someone from their home is a physical action; the last line of defence against it is also necessarily physical. If Rehabs must risk their lives each time they enter their intended victims’ home to drag them from it, will they really be willing to do it millions of times over?

This is good news! Hopefully, with this, Putin and Dugin’s ideas for a “Eurasian Union” will fall on deaf ears. With a European Military the US can also stop spending massive amounts of money supplying NATO on the continent. With NATO’s presence on decline, Russia will not need to worry as much about being besieged, or of an “imminent military invasion” from the West, and everyone can relax a little…

The EU has “warned” Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic that they have 24 hours to start taking in refugees. Without an army to back its threat, however, what does it expect will happen if not their calling its bluff?

Heavy fines for not doing so might work. Perhaps also the threat of being kicked out of the EU? Interestingly though, if Poland left the EU and tried to get cozy with Britain again, we would be repeating some of the themes that led up to WWII…

Would heavy fines work against Israel? If they refuse to pay the fine, it goes right back to whether or not you have an army to go in and collect it in territory instead. (Territory is always better than currency anyway.) Hypnotix is correct.

Many refugees themselves could be recruited into the EU military. It’s one of the most obvious and most productive ways to employ them.

“Perhaps also the threat of being kicked out of the EU?”

Then we could easily be looking at Duginism becoming real and a new Turanian empire emerging. (In my mind, the “V” in V4 stands not only for Visegrad, but also for Vanir.)

So long as the will exists to invade, Hungary would be much easier to take down than Israel. Once Hungary is ruthlessly made an example of, the other three V4 states can be renegotiated with. Anything less and other EU states can be expected to defect to the V4 side over time.